Final answer:
In the ratification debates, the Federalists, who supported ratification, aimed to establish a stronger national government, while the Anti-Federalists opposed it, fearing central government overreach and loss of individual liberties. Promises of adding amendments for protecting individual rights helped to mitigate opposition.
Step-by-step explanation:
During the ratification process of the United States Constitution, two major factions emerged: the Anti-Federalists, who opposed ratification, and the Federalists, who supported it. The Federalists argued for a stronger national government to promote economic growth and national defense, believing that the new constitution would facilitate this. They included prominent figures such as James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay, who collectively authored The Federalist Papers, essays that played a significant role in gaining support for the constitution. On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists contested the ratification, believing the new government would have too much power and could lead to tyranny, similar to what was experienced under British rule. They feared that the proposed federal government would overburden citizens with taxes and drag the country into unnecessary wars.
The opposition of the Anti-Federalists was partly overcome by the promise of adding amendments to protect individual liberties, which would later become the Bill of Rights. This assurance helped sway several state delegates who were undecided or opposed to ratification. Famous Anti-Federalist proponents like Patrick Henry and George Mason argued in favor of states' rights and were concerned about the central government's dominance over the states.